Talk:Fuzhou dialect

Min opera

The section on Min opera in this article is merely copy-pasted from the Min Opera article itself. I considered deleting the section and adding a "See Also" link, but wanted some input first. Thoughts? MeredithParmer 19:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed those texts. --GnuDoyng 16:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

How to translate "緊韻" and "鬆韻"？

I translate them into "close rime" and "open rime" but I'm not sure of its correctness. See Close/Open rimes.

Has anyone got an idea?

GnuDoyng 13:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Short-Sighted Principle"

Do we need to say "short-sighted principle that Mandarin Chinese and Fuzhou dialect were contradictory rather than complementary." Can we remove "short-sighted"? It is controversial and unnecessary to put this adjective in the article --Honghaier 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Why? Oppressing local dialects in the name of popularizing the national language is morally a crime. --GnuDoyng 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It may or may not be morally a crime. I do not see how it makes it short-sighted, though. In any case, I think this is a controversial topic and does not need to be placed in the article. All we need to mention is that the government suppresses fuzhouhua. Let people form their own opinions. --Honghaier 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

GnuDoyng, I am back to discuss the "short-sighted principle" to which you are referring to in the article. I took some time off to think about it and I really do believe that you are violating the NPOV policy on wikipedia by expressing a policy point of view. I really appreciate your contributions to the project but I ask that we work some consensus on this topic because I cannot allow this POV to be expressed in a language article. Do you or do you not agree that by calling the language policy of the Nationalist and the Communist Party "short-sighted" you are imposing your own opinion? --Honghaier 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Please sign your comments before you come to discuss anything with me. Thank you. --GnuDoyng 09:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Now let's get back to the matter at hand --Honghaier 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

All right, then. But before we get down to business, I'd like to ask you a few questions: Are you, or were you once, a Hók-ciŭ-uâ speaker? Have you ever been to Foochow? Wouldn't you be hurt if your mother tongue, along with the culture it carries, is oppressed by authority?

By saying "short-sighted", I wasn't only giving voice to my personal feelings, but also to the opinion of many other Foochowese people. I've lived in that city for 19 years since I was born so I'm quite sure of that. If you carry out a survey asking residents whether it is justifiable to abandon the local language, you will get the same answer: NO!

BTW, I don't like to discuss things with anyone anonymous. I strongly suggest you should set up an account in Wikipedia. There are millions of people named "George" (and my English name is George too -_-"), so only a wiki username can identify yourself. --GnuDoyng 17:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for you, I will create an account. There are three points I want to make, in response to your comments:

1. I am not a Fuzhou dialect speaker and have never been to Fuzhou. However, I live in New York City and many of my friends come from Fuzhou and speak it. No, I would not be hurt if my mother tongue were oppressed by authority. In fact, I deplore the fact that my mother tongue has yet not been supplanted by a more dominant, widely accepted language. Which brings me to my other point

2. I am in no way trying to impose my un-orthodox opinion on languages on this article. All I am asking for is that we clear the article of POVs. If you need to state that oppressing minority languages is morally reprehensible or 'short-sighted', then please say it in brackets. It would be something like "a policy which many people find criminal". Please dont just blurt it out as a fact. This lowers the standard of wikipedia.

3. And my last, sidenote comment. What's with 'short-sighted' anyway? So far you have been making the case for a policy lacking in morals. Still no reasons given for short-sighted. Short-sighted would be a policy that in the long run produces results that the authority would find counterproductive. So far, the authority in this case does not seems to be cutting the branch on which it sits, so to speak. --Honghaier 19:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your creating an account just for me. As a Wikipedian, I would feel very much bewildered if someone who hasn't got a wiki account would turn out to be offended by such a slight taint of NPOV violation. Still, from your viewpoint about your mother tongue (which arouses antipathy in me, sorry I have to say), I can tell that you are no less radical than me, the only difference being that we are standing at the two ends of a spectrum. So how do you prove that you are not trying, in an unconscious way, to impose your own opinion about the Chinese language policy by demanding the remove of this single word?

Since you come from the United States, I think the best and easiest way to convince you is to make a survey in your city about how people think about the early language policy in the American history, when thousands of aboriginal Indian languages disappeared before any fieldwork could have been done. When a language dies, its distinct culture also dies, and such loss is beyond measure. Do most of the Americans consider the early English hegemonic policy as "short-sighted"? I firmly believe it.

As a compromise, I agree to put that word in parentheses. Arguably, however, this world of diversity needs more than ever to be shared and maintained, and any deed against that will equal to committing a crime to the whole mankind in the long term. This is really a moral issue. I hope you realize that before it is too late. --GnuDoyng 04:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, you ask me about mine and other people's opinions. I will satisfy your curiosity: No, I do not think it was shot-sighted to impose a single language in the U.S. A single language was what made this country united and great.

The thing is, opinions on this issue really should not matter. I could have argued for NPOV policy even if I held the opposite opinion. I am glad that you recognize (in your post above) that the article as it currently stands violates the NPOV policy. Why do you then insist on breaking the policy?

As long as you state that fuzhou language has been suppressed, no one needs to be reminded that it is morally wrong: they either already know it or they do not agree. Everyone will already have formed an opinion before reading this article. Stating the opinion as a fact does nothing but fire emotions and lower the standard of Wikipedia.

I disagree that putting 'short-sighted' in parenthesis does anything to address the NPOV violation. I think it needs to be removed completely. Since it looks like you are the major contributor to this article, I feel bad to come here and tell you how to write it so I am willing to compromise if you put the reference as something like "a policy that many people find short-sighted". Ideally, even this needs to be referenced with a source.--Honghaier 19:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed. I need to mind you, however, a unified language counts for nothing in making a nation united and great. --GnuDoyng 05:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Glad we reached a solution. I noticed that the Mandarin page for Fuzhou has a similar problem, so I posted a note in the talk page in my really awful Chinese--Honghaier 22:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Chinese version of this article is mainly translated from English by me. You don't have to wait until someone responds to the note, just go ahead and remove what you think is improper and fill in the edit summary blank with your reason. --GnuDoyng 01:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You flatter. I can't dream of speaking Chinese well enough to edit wikipedia articles. Although I guess it should be something like

幾十年來國語運動事實上是建立在一個理念之上...

--Honghaier 02:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "錯誤" is removed. --GnuDoyng 10:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Kompyang

Need the pronunciation of Kompyang (光饼 - an onion biscuit from Fuzhou that is popular in Malaysia) in the Fuzhou dialect. Please add it at Kompyang if you know it. I assume the Min Nan pronunciation isn't going to be close enough. Badagnani 17:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --GnuDoyng 15:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In Bàng-uâ-cê the pronunciation of 光餅 is guŏng-biāng Hĭ uông lìng (talk) 09:35, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

福州别字

You know, the negative word "mei" written 卖 is most definitely 未. Cantonese uses this character for the same sound. <spetz> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.85.210 (talk) 05:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No. "未" is pronounced as [mui] or [ei] in Foochow, quite different from "卖". --GnuDoyng 03:13, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I write it as 勿 or 勿+會 muôi Hĭ uông lìng (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1 Cü Meng.gif

Image:1 Cü Meng.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Min Dong is a separate language, not Fuzhou?

Min Dong is a separate language, not Fuzhou?? No, Fuzhou dialect is a member of Min Dong language family. And the fact is, even within this language family, Fuzhou dialect itself is not mutually intelligible with other Min Dong languages like those spoken in Ningde. --GnuDoyng (talk) 04:52, 29 September 2008 (UTC) -GnuDoyng, since you are not really a ntaive fuzhou speaker, and all the people from Ningde I know seem to understand Fuzhounese just fine, could you find a reference somewhere to your notion that fuzhounese is a language and not a dialect? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.204.11.253 (talk) 00:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Move Fuzhou dialect to Foochowese Language

For NPOV, shouldn't we move Fuzhou dialect to Foochowese language? This article of Foochowese seems to be the only one in Min languages that is denominated with "dialect". Isn't it ridiculous? --Luhungnguong (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right. Such misnomer often conceals the gigantic differences between this language and Mandarin Chinese. However, I think Fuzhou language or Foochow language might be better (I personally prefer the former one), because "Foochowese" is too new a word to be accepted into formal use. --GnuDoyng (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree. But "Foochow language" is my preference, since the word "Foochow" appeared in published materials (like dictionary) more frequently than Fuzhou (which is also a new word). --Luhungnguong (talk) 14:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The most common term in use is Fuzhounese. Under native English euphonic phonological changes, the -ese suffix is often naturally changed into -nese, as is seen in Javanese (Java+nese), Balinese (Bali+nese), Sundanese (Sunda+nese), Shanghainese (Shanghai+nese), etc. In a couple rare circumstances, it changes into -lese, such as Congolese (Congo+lese). For consistency with Shanghainese (highly established and entrenched over the unnatural/non-native *Shanghaiese), Fuzhou should change into Fuzhounese. Similarly, Wenzhou's dialect has already started the naturalization into Wenzhounese, which people from Wenzhou highly prefer, so Fuzhou and its distinctive language should follow suit. Cinivala (talk) 05:58, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

"Fuzhounese" is often used to refer to people from Fuzhou, but "Fuzhou dialect" is the standard term for the language in English-language works on the subject. Kanguole 09:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Fuzhounese refers to both the people from Fuzhou as well as their language, just like any others of the corresponding adjectives of this -ese type behave in English (Japanese>both the people and their language; Maltese> both the people and their language; Shanghainese> both the people and their language). There is no evidence that Fuzhounese is any different, especially in light of how the people from Fuzhou prefecture use the term themselves. "Fuzhou dialect" is used in linguistic works to refer specifically to the speech of Fuzhou metropolitan area, as opposed to the general language of Fuzhou prefecture as a whole. There is both a Fuzhou metropolitan area/city and a Fuzhou prefecture-level city/prefecture; this is a peculiarity of Chinese geography/administrative division terms. Similarly, Cantonese can be specified as "Guangzhou dialect" when one is specifically talking about the speech of Guangzhou city/metropolitan area, as opposed to other dialects/varieties of Cantonese. This is often needed because of precision when talking about fine points such as phonetics/phonology, when even a change in neighborhood/district often results in changes in pronunciation. Imposing "Fuzhou dialect" on the entire page and purging all references to Fuzhounese based on a perceived preference for the term in technical linguistic terminology does not take into account that these terms are for specific dialects, not languages, being hyperspecific because of technical academic need, rather than a practical common-use term for the language. Therefore Fuzhou dialect, with the word "dialect" in it, is not suitable for as the name of the entire language. The academic literature you refer to is not naming the language, but only a specific dialect of the language, namely the dialect of the traditional walled city of Fuzhou. Additionally, "Fuzhou dialect" continues to imply the outdated model in which all Sinitic varieties are seen as "dialects" of a unitary Chinese language. Shanghainese and Wenzhounese have already sucessfully transitioned away from terms "Shanghai dialect" and "Wenzhou dialect", and there is no indication that "Fuzhou dialect" is any more special than those terms. However, the key point is that linguistic works on "Fuzhou dialect" aren't referring to the language, but only a particular variety of that language, limited to the core traditional metropolitan area of Fuzhou. Fuzhounese is already a useful term for people from all over Fuzhou prefecture (even if not Fuzhou metropolitan area) to refer to their language, much like people from Yongjia, Rui'an or other districts of Wenzhou prefecture refer to their language as Wenzhounese, even though they aren't from Wenzhou metropolitan city (Lucheng etc. districts that make up the traditional Wenzhou city). Cinivala (talk) 19:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You can make a case for the logic of your proposed name, but Wikipedia follows usage in English-language sources. It is not the place to promote a new nomenclature not used by those sources. Also, I've seen no evidence that it's used only for the old walled city. Kanguole 19:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

It is typical for a reference work if listing out various Chinese varieties to just name the geographic location, like a list Shanghai, Guangzhou, Suzhou, Wenzhou, Fuzhou. This would always imply the central metropolitan district, not a general reference to the entire prefecture. Jerry Norman's original 1971 manuscript on the Foochow dialect specifies that it is only a description of the metropolitan area, saying that next to nothing is known at present concerning any but the dialect of the city of Foochow. It states that Foochow and its sister dialects are spoken in the city of Foochow and the old prefectures of Foochow and Funing, clearly referring to other Eastern Min dialects. Keep in mind that at this point in time, all Chinese varieties were still being described as dialects, and there was no effort to distinguish languages from within them. In any case, "Fuzhou Chinese" would be more appropriate than "Fuzhou dialect" as a neutral term that is also used in English language sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinivala (talk • contribs) 00:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not minyue words

徛 Khia

毋 Mm

戇 Gong

are not minyue words but chinese words, they are also used in cantonese to mean the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.73.10.66 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

PLEASE,PLEASE! you taiwanese keep out of touching my hometown language. it is up to your guys separate Taiwan from China, but no Fuzhou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.16.101 (talk) 13:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Tone Sandhi Rules

Number of issues that are relevant to the tone sandhi table in current section 2.1.1.1:

1) Needs citation. Chen (2000) Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 92 - Tone Sandhi: Patterns across Chinese dialects on page 49-50 gives very different citation tone values and values after tone sandhi for what I assume to be 新 (which is 陰平), 成 (陽平), and 聖 (which I believe is 陰去). Assuming the Fuzhou values are regular in relation to the development from Middle Chinese, this reference is inconsistent with the table.

2) There is no indication of which side of the table is the first syllable and which is the second syllable.

3) The table is inconsistent with the sandhi tone contours given for 福州 in current section 2.1.3.1, given that 福 is 陰入乙 according to the table, as it is transcribed with -k in Bàng-uâ-cê, if of course the table is to be read that way round with left-as-first syllable. But it is also inconsistent even when read as top-as-first syllable.

Michael Ly (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: have added a note addressing point 2) in the text. I've found the problem with 3) - 陰入甲 and 陰入乙 had been mixed up. So 福, with its /k/ phoneme realised as a glottal stop, is actually 陰入甲. --Michael Ly (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Second update: all of which solves 1); though 新 and 聖 are in the same sandhi class, 成 happens to undergo sandhi to form the same result in front of 人. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Ly (talk • contribs) 17:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Initial Assimilation Rules

In the article (as of this text's writing), the initial assimilation rules seem to be incomplete (or are wrong). Here's the section on the Initial Assimilation rules:

In Fuzhou dialect, there are various kinds of initial assimilation (聲母類化), all of which are progressive. When two or more than two characters combine into a word, the initial of the first character stays unchanged while those of the following characters, in most cases, change to match its preceding phoneme, i.e., the coda of its preceding character.

The Coda of the Former Character	The Initial Assimilation of the Latter Character
Null coda or /-ʔ/	/p/ and /pʰ/ change to [β]; /t/, /tʰ/ and /s/ change to [l]; /k/, /kʰ/ and /h/ change to null initial (without [ʔ]); /ts/ and /tsʰ/ change to /ʒ/; /m/, /n/ and /ŋ/ remain unchanged.
/-ŋ/	/p/ and /pʰ/ change to [m]; /t/, /tʰ/ /s/ and /l/ change to [n]; /k/, /kʰ/ and /h/ change to [ŋ]; /ts/ and /tsʰ/ change to [ʒ]; /m/, /n/ and /ŋ/ remain unchanged.
/-k/	All initials remain unchanged.

But the examples here do not conform to the said rules, so any expansion on the initial assimilation section is appreciated.

Romanization	IPA from Example	IPA Expected
nṳ̄ hō̤	ny˧ ho˧	ny˧ ŋo˧
cái-giéng	tsai˥˧ kiɛŋ˨˩˧	tsai˥˧ ŋiɛŋ˨˩˧

I'm a Cantonese-speaker, by the way. These rules are very foreign to me. LCS (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
What constitutes as word? Would a series of syllables delimited only by hyphens count as a single word? 無綻 is spelled as two separate words (mò̤ dâng) and the second syllable still assimilates (mo˨˩ lɑŋ˨˦˨). LCS (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually 汝好 nṳ̄ hō̤ doesn't undergo tone sandhi (the tone of 汝 hasn't changed from ˧ to ˧˥), so it wouldn't undergo initial assimilation either - it is composed of two sandhi domains. In general, initial assimilation and rime change are both less prevalent than tone sandhi, and only occur under certain conditions. Hence in the case of 再見, there is tone sandhi (the tone of 再 changes from ˨˩˧ to ˥˧) but there is no initial assimilation (so in 見 the /k/ of /kiɛŋ˨˩˧/ is not dropped); I'm not sure about the rime tensing, because I think it might be present, but it is non-contrastive so it is not written into the Bàng-uâ-cê orthography (I can't quite tell if /ɑi/ has become /ai/ in 再). The rules as to when initial assimilation and rime change are used constitute an extra layer of complexity, and that's on top of the definition of the 'word', which, like in the better-studied Min Nan group (including Amoy dialect and Taiwanese Hokkien), are still in the process of being worked out. In the case of 無綻, I would see this as one phrase, as there has been tone sandhi on the 無 (from ˥˧ to ˨˩) and there is initial assimilation, so I'd say it should be hyphenated. However, I know that the modern dictionaries hardly use Bàng-uâ-cê, and certainly not with hyphens, so it's quite hard to find a reference. Michael Ly (talk) 19:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

What rules dictate whether or not rime change and initial assimilation occur? Programmeruser (talk) 13:47, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

This is an interesting field of research. Various papers talk about it, e.g. You (2020), Yang (2005). To grossly simplify: certain lexemes undergo it; certain morphemes cause it (most notably the common negative 伓, also written 唔, BUC: *n̂g*); it is possible to have one without the other; there is considerable dialectal variation with Eastern Min.

There exist some minimal pairs conditioned by the syntax, e.g. 菜頭 without initial assimilation = "the roots of vegetables" as a phrase, vs the lexeme "daikon radish" with initial assimilation; others are through metaphorical extension, e.g. 火把 without initial assimilation = "torch", but with initial assimilation referring to the fried dough snack.

Michael Ly (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

"False friends"

It seems to me that what is called "false friends" in this article are not, in fact, false friends? A "false friend" is generally a word or phrase that sounds and/or looks the same in both languages but means something different. The phrases cited here do not appear in Mandarin and thus they cannot be false friends, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daanvanesch (talk • contribs) 09:14, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuqing dialect

User:Bloodmerchant/Fuqing dialect may be worth finishing translating. Or maybe it could be used to expand this article. — kwami (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I would be willing to spend some time on sourcing more information on the Fuqing dialect (group) and on translating the article... can one edit that user page on the Fuqing dialect directly? I'm happy for any set-up, whether it is merged into the Fuzhou dialect one or kept separate. Michael Ly (talk) 02:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Vocabulary

Either my parents were using it as slang, or some of the words under "Meaning in Classical Chinese and Fuzhou dialect" table are wrong.

I propose removing 走 cāu and 湯 tŏng. As I've heard and used it as the mandarin equivalent. In "I went to school" or "I went on a vacation" And it was not read as "I fled to school" or "I fled to a vacation".

Everything else seems accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 54.240.196.185 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 2 February 2016 UTC

獨立日 Tone Sandhi Example

Should the tone of 獨 after sandhi not be ˧? The table for trisyllabic sandhi right after the example contradicts the statement that it should be ˨˩. Programmeruser (talk) 19:06, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

On consulting Li Zhuqing (2002)'s Fuzhou phonology and grammar, p.97, I've found that both ˧ ˧ ˥ʔ (33-33-5ʔ) and ˨˩ ˧ ˥ʔ (21-33-5ʔ) are acceptable in most instances of this tone pattern (citing e.g. 着食药、食毒药、直直目). There are isolated cases where 陽入-陽入-陽入 must yield ˧ ˧ ˥ʔ (33-33-5ʔ) [given as ˦ ˦ ˥ʔ (44-44-5ʔ) in the source], such as in the word 六十六 lĕ̤k-sĕk-lĕ̤k, where the first syllable /løyʔ˥/ undergoes sandhi (and rime tensing) to /lø(ʔ)˧/. The alternative trisyllabic pattern with first character sandhi ˨˩ (21) is valid for many tone patterns, but not all. Looks like we will have to examine this and do some editing. Michael Ly (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Initial Assimilation Realization

Some sources claim that ts/tsʰ assimilate to ʒ after a null or nasal coda, while 福州方言研究 states that they assimilate to z after a null coda and nz after a nasal coda. Programmeruser (talk) 23:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

In addition, 闽东方言的声母类化 states that it's ɹ and nɹ according to experimental data, which IMO sounds the most similar to me. Programmeruser (talk) 02:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)